Can a dictatorship be more free than a democracy?

[A18]

The U.S. was freer under Lincoln than it was under FDR, so clearly dictators can sometimes be preferable to democratic mandates.

[jokerman]

Socially, yes.  Politically, no.

Indeed you can have socially liberal dictatorships and totalitarian democratic majorities, but that is rare.

[Speed of Sound]

The U.S. was freer under Lincoln than it was under FDR, so clearly dictators can sometimes be preferable to democratic mandates.

To answer your question, sure they can be.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

To answer your question, sure they can be.

How?

[angus]

By all means one can argue by counterexample that a condition characterized by superficial lack of freedom can be assigned to individuals which have greater individual freedom than those described by conditions which are characterized by Will.  For example, in many ways the slaves of the wife of a Ming Dynasty emperor are freer than the wife of the emperor.  But I'd rather be the wife of the emporor than her slaves.  Having to lie with the emperor from time to time seems such a small price to pay for all that radically hip stuff in the apartment.  And the slaves have to wash their own undergarments.   ewww.   And dictatorships vs democracy?  Sure, the friends of Fidel are much freer in some ways than those poor bastards in the slums of Johannesburg, in one of the world's great democracies.  No doubt.  I certainly wouldn't argue that the case can't be made for the negative.  I just wanted to suggest that in the greater sense of freedom, and neither are truly free, the democracy at least offers a chance of choice.

No, again you're missing the point.  I'm not talking about comparing individual cases of people living under one system or the other.

The point is, democracy is majority rule.  The majority are freedom-hating, tyrannical prudes; therefore democracy leads to tyranny.  In a dictatorship if the dictator doesn't particularly care about your personal habits, you're likely to be more free 'socially' than under democracy.

if you and every one else will admit to playing silly word games so will I.  the thing is, opebo, you have six thousand years of evidence to the contrary but can't see it.  You think, "Hey, Akhenaten was something of a dictator, and decided on a whim to change the primary deity, so therefore dictation is free, because democrats can't just do that.  Hell, they can't even impose religion on the people."  So they're not as free.  The problem is, your point of view is so far elitist that you can't help but relate to akhenaten, rather than his seven million subjects as the rest of us would.  Yes, a majority can dictate rules, just like a dictator.  But my position is that one person dictating rules to everyone is a less free condition than millions of people dictating rules to themselves.  This I hold to be true no matter how much money the the dictator allots you, no matter how many sex slaves he provides you, no matter what drugs he allows you to use, etc., since ultimately whatever freedoms you enjoy come and go at the whim of one man, and not at the collective will of a people.  Of course there's no right answer.  You will not see eye-to-eye with the object of dictation but rather its subject.  and nobody, emperor, king, dictator, president, prime minister, or me cares about your personal habits.  (e.g., the fact that snorting cocaine is illegal has less to do with someone poking their nose into what your nose is doing than it has to do with perceptions of public security.  But as a practical matter, I wouldn't like the law any more or less whether it was edict by whim of one man, or democratically decided by a majority of the people, so that line of argument, in addition to being false, is irrelevant.)  And, as I said, counterexamples provide disproof in syllogisms, so I think you can make the argument by picking these individual cases.  And you refuse to relinquish this definition of "more free" so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Speed of Sound]

To answer your question, sure they can be.

How?

a democracy could vote in bills to eliminate all freedoms, while a dictator could demand that citizens have all freedoms possible. Its not likely, but that wasnt the question.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Do you actually know what Puritan meant back then? Not to pick on you or anything, because most people don't...

Was it the same as the people who did the Salem Witch Trials?

Er... no. No... I don't think that literature was banned

I was very stupid here, I meant to type "dancing" and for some reason typed that instead.

I don't think that was ever banned as such; certain Major Generals (the people responsible for running the various Districts) did crack down on ale houses though.
Their main target was cock-fighting and the like.

well even if not enforced this was a goal of Cromwell's government even if certain areas did not follow it.

Again, I think this was only in certain Districts.

see above

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear... who on earth told you that? What actually happend as far as religious freedom went was the reverse of that... to give a couple of examples; the Church of England was abolished, people were no longer fined for not attending Anglican services, the persecution of the Dissenters and Seperatists was ended... and the ban on Jews was finally lifted.

Well the person who told me that was Irish. And from what I've heard the Irish probably would disagree here...

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The point is, democracy is majority rule.  The majority are freedom-hating, tyrannical prudes; therefore democracy leads to tyranny.  In a dictatorship if the dictator doesn't particularly care about your personal habits, you're likely to be more free 'socially' than under democracy.

Not everywhere neccesarily. The Netherlands is pretty nice, and if San Francisco became independent you wouldn't have that problem. However I agree in a country where most people are freedom hating prudes who can't mind their own business it'd be better to have a dictator who does than democracy.

[opebo]

if you and every one else will admit to playing silly word games so will I.  the thing is, opebo, you have six thousand years of evidence to the contrary but can't see it.  You think, "Hey, Akhenaten was something of a dictator, and decided on a whim to change the primary deity, so therefore dictation is free, because democrats can't just do that.  Hell, they can't even impose religion on the people."  So they're not as free.

What does imposing anything on people have to do with freedom?  Freedom is precisely the opposite of that - not imposing things on them.  Dictatorships can and often are more free precisely because the dictator is probably less likely to care to meddle in one's personal life - as long as one doesn't threaten his rule - than the nosy busybody prudes that make up the electorate.  And I assure you democracies can impose anything on anyone - democracy merely means majority rule, not any guarantee of individual rights.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I am relating only to those subjects, not akhenaten.  I am saying that akhenaten, or Saddam Hussein, or any dictator simply may not care as much about whether I can hire a prostitute as the bourgeois prude that elect government in a democracy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My position has nothing to do with money.  And I would much rather put my hopes in the whim of one busy dictator than the collective will of a bunch of freedom-hating busybodies.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, of course, but my point is that one is much more likely to 'luck out' with one dictator than with the majority, since he will be busy retaining rule and enjoying the fruits of it.. he will also generally be an exceptional person, from the upper classes, ruthless, etc., so he is less likely to be taken in by the absurdity of bourgeois morality than the pathetic wage-slaves and conformist social climbers that make up the electorate in a democracy.  Thats not to say he won't violate one's rights, but at the very least his intellectual justification of it will be an honest one - might makes right - and not the repellant claims of an objective morality one gets from the envious, anhedonic commoner.

[opebo]

The point is, democracy is majority rule.  The majority are freedom-hating, tyrannical prudes; therefore democracy leads to tyranny.  In a dictatorship if the dictator doesn't particularly care about your personal habits, you're likely to be more free 'socially' than under democracy.

Not everywhere neccesarily. The Netherlands is pretty nice, and if San Francisco became independent you wouldn't have that problem. However I agree in a country where most people are freedom hating prudes who can't mind their own business it'd be better to have a dictator who does than democracy.

Good point.. I suppose in small nations one has a better chance of a majority of non-prudes.

[minionofmidas]

Admittedly I don't know much about it, but from what I do know I'd take the absolute monarchy over Cromwell's Puritan regime and its banning of literature, alcohol, theater not to mention the great decrease in religious freedom that happened as well.

There was very strict censorship both before the Civil War and after Cromwell, but a near complete (but not complete ) lack of it during the Cromwell period. There definitely was no ban of alcohol, that's a 19th century idea. There has not been more religious freedom at any other pre-circa...uh... mid 18th century point in British history than under Cromwell. And the closing of theaters happened 40 years earlier (and was a crying shame).

[angus]

Freedom is precisely the opposite of that - not imposing things on them. 

and this is the key to my answer.  I think that if you postulate this very definition of freedom, then, dictatorship, by definition, is a less free condition than democracy. 

Yes, I think you can choose specific cases in which dictation would yield superficially "freer" societies that democratically determined ones.  San Francisco?  Hardly.  I reckon that if SF were an independent country, you'd have hard a time getting many rights that you now hold dear to be maintained in a democratic fashion.  E.g., first you'd lose your second amendment rights.  Immediately thereafter there would be serious emissions curbs combined with exhorbitant taxes.  Things would probably change.  But none of this is relevant, since, as you said, freedom is nonimposition.  Dictation, no matter how freely the impositions leave you to roam, is still imposition, whereas laws democratically decided, no matter how severe you may view them, are not imposed, but collectively chosen.

[opebo]

Dictation, no matter how freely the impositions leave you to roam, is still imposition, whereas laws democratically decided, no matter how severe you may view them, are not imposed, but collectively chosen.

No, they're still imposed by 51% on the whole.  I am just as subjugated in a democracy as I would be in a dictatorship.  The only people that have any reason to prefer a democracy are those who might be in the majority - and one thing is for sure, that will never be me.

[MaC]

The U.S. was freer under Lincoln than it was under FDR, so clearly dictators can sometimes be preferable to democratic mandates.

Yeah, but that's a slight variation.  There was some kind of choosing for both presidents.  Neither just came to power because they were son of the last leader or headed a military coup.

Life under Lincoln was freer than FDR?  It's really equivalent about asking "would you rather die in a car accident or die from a gunshot wound?"

[phk]

Probably in theory, but not in practice.

The freest state of mankind is when there are no governments, countries, borders, states whatever.... and everybody is thier own "big" government.

[KillerPollo]

I fucking HATE freedom now that i've read all posts!
Freedom will cease to exist. Opression shall prevail.

[angus]

Dictation, no matter how freely the impositions leave you to roam, is still imposition, whereas laws democratically decided, no matter how severe you may view them, are not imposed, but collectively chosen.

No, they're still imposed by 51% on the whole.  I am just as subjugated in a democracy as I would be in a dictatorship.  The only people that have any reason to prefer a democracy are those who might be in the majority - and one thing is for sure, that will never be me.

again, this is where you're misleading yourself.  I'll never be in a majority probably either on many issues.  I think two men should be allowed to legally marry, for example.  But most folks don't.  Fine.  Would I be more free in a democracy that allowed two men to marry or in a dictatorship that allowed two men to marry?  Similarly, would I be more free in a democracy in which homosexual marriage was prohibited or more free in a dictatorship in which homosexual marriage was prohibited?  Turns out the answer is the same for both.  In the first question, I'm more free in a democracy in which gay marriage is allowed.  In the second, I'm more free in a democracy in which gay marriage is prohibited.  And if I were the sort who thought gay marriage should remain illegal, for whatever reason, the answers would still be the same.  This is because in a democracy, I am free to get this issue on the ballot, and I am free to campaign for or against this issue, and I free to try to change the law.  I am free in the knowledge than I am not powerless to change the law.  I am free to try to make prostitution legal, or, if it is already legal, I am free to try to make it illegal.  I am free to try to make the use of marijuana illegal, or, if it isn't already, I am free to try to make its use legal.  I am always more free in a democracy, no matter how much disagreement with me the average voter has, than I am in a dictatorship, therefore it is logically impossible to be "more free" in a dictatorship than in a democracy.

[MODU]

Yes, it can.  Just depends on who those in power in the democracy and the dictatorship treat their subjects.

[MaC]

I fucking HATE freedom now that i've read all posts!
Freedom will cease to exist. Opression shall prevail.

you can remove that post if you don't support the freedom of speech.  You seemed pretty adamant about staying on this forum when you were threatened with a ban